In Pakistan, poverty increasingly appears to be treated as an administrative offence rather than a national challenge demanding urgent attention. A poor man who places a handcart on a roadside to earn his family’s daily bread may find himself confronted by enforcement officials, fined, or deprived of his livelihood. Yet when consumers face unjustified prices and essential commodities become unaffordable, the authorities often appear less effective in providing relief. This imbalance raises a fundamental question: why does the state seem more capable of penalising the poor than protecting them from economic exploitation?
Across Pakistani cities, thousands of small vendors, roadside food sellers and dhaba operators depend on daily earnings to feed their families. Their presence on roadsides may create genuine problems involving traffic, pedestrian access, sanitation and public safety. These concerns deserve attention. However, removing a person’s only means of earning without offering a reasonable alternative can push an already struggling family further into deprivation. Urban management should resolve these problems without treating poverty itself as a violation.
The Punjab Enforcement and Regulatory Authority (PERA) has responsibilities relating to encroachments, price control, hoarding and profiteering. Such regulatory powers are necessary, but their exercise must be fair, transparent and proportionate. When a vendor’s cart or goods are confiscated, the consequences may extend beyond a day’s lost income, affecting the family’s food, education and other essential needs. Authorities must therefore distinguish between enforcing legitimate regulations and imposing avoidable hardship on vulnerable citizens.
The same concern arises in traffic enforcement. Low-income motorcyclists may face substantial fines for defects such as a damaged indicator or a missing rear-view mirror. Road safety is essential, and these components help protect riders and other road users. Nevertheless, enforcement should distinguish between minor, repairable defects and genuinely dangerous violations. For a daily-wage worker or delivery rider, a fine can consume a substantial portion of daily earnings. Some cannot afford immediate repairs because their income barely covers food, fuel and household expenses. Where the law permits, warnings and reasonable periods for correcting minor defects would encourage compliance without unnecessarily punishing poverty. Dangerous driving and serious safety violations, meanwhile, must attract appropriate penalties.
A further concern is the apparent weakness of enforcement against unjustified market prices. When retailers disregard officially notified prices, consumers need effective intervention rather than announcements that have little practical impact. Price-control authorities must inspect markets, investigate complaints and take action against proven violations. A vendor selling food on a roadside should not face more immediate consequences than a trader who deliberately overcharges consumers.
These problems become more serious as rising living costs squeeze household budgets. Higher expenditure on food, electricity, transport and cooking fuel leaves low-paid workers, pensioners, labourers and daily-wage earners with little money for healthcare, education or savings. For families living from one day’s earnings to the next, even a relatively small penalty or an unjustified price increase can have serious consequences.
Accountability must therefore become a measurable obligation of public administration. Every department empowered to impose fines, confiscate goods or disrupt livelihoods must explain how it exercises that authority. Penalties should be supported by written reasons and proper receipts, while citizens must have accessible channels to challenge unfair decisions. Complaints alleging bribery, harassment, selective enforcement or abuse of power should be investigated independently within defined time limits. Where misconduct is established, disciplinary action and legal consequences must follow, irrespective of an official’s rank or connections.
The government should also publish regular enforcement reports showing inspections conducted, penalties imposed, complaints received, appeals upheld and officials disciplined for misconduct. Such information would enable the public to assess whether departments are achieving their stated objectives. An agency’s performance should be judged by safer roads, orderly public spaces, fair market prices and lawful conduct—not simply by the amount of revenue collected through fines.
Practical reforms are equally important. Municipal authorities should establish designated vending areas with basic facilities, reasonable charges and clear operating rules. Vendors should receive adequate notice and a fair opportunity to relocate, except where immediate action is necessary for public safety. Traffic authorities should apply proportionate penalties, while consumer protection departments must strengthen inspections and respond promptly to complaints. Employment opportunities, skills development, affordable business spaces and effective social protection should complement these measures.
The broader principle is simple: the law must apply consistently to roadside vendors, motorcyclists, powerful traders and public officials alike. No citizen should escape lawful accountability because of influence, and no poor citizen should be denied fair treatment because of limited means. Regulations should protect the public interest, not become instruments of arbitrary authority.
A handcart is not merely an obstruction; for many families, it is their only source of survival. A motorcycle is not merely a vehicle; for countless workers, it is the means by which they earn their daily bread. Clearing a road or issuing a fine may demonstrate enforcement, but effective governance requires something more: fairness, proportionality and accountability.
The true test of governance is not how efficiently officials penalise the poor, but whether the state holds every exercise of public power accountable to the law. Ordinary citizens do not ask for exemption from their responsibilities. They ask for equal treatment, protection against exploitation and a fair opportunity to earn an honest living. These are not acts of charity; they are essential obligations of a democratic state.
Pakistan must move beyond a system in which the poor are easy targets while administrative failures and market exploitation remain insufficiently addressed. A just government protects public spaces without destroying livelihoods, promotes road safety without imposing disproportionate hardship and controls prices while holding violators accountable. Ultimately, the strength of a state is measured not by the severity of its penalties against the vulnerable but by its willingness to ensure justice for all.
The writer can be reached at mujtabanodeel@gmail.com.
